VMware Live Recovery Reviews

As highlighted, the most valuable feature of VMware SRM is production replication. It efficiently manages notifications and ensures accessibility within the VMware environment itself. It is advantageous compared to other products, such as Veeam, Commvault, or backup solutions, which may involve additional costs.

They could enhance the automation features for the product.

We have been using VMware SRM for ten years.

It provides a stable environment. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The product is highly scalable. We encounter challenges while changing the portfolio. Overall, it works as per our expectations. We have deployed it for more than 200 enterprise customers. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

We rarely contact VMware's technical support team as we can manage most issues with our technical support capabilities. Sometimes, we escalate a few incidents to them. We receive good support services.

Positive

The initial is straightforward if you have prior experience working with it. I rate the process a nine or ten.

In scenarios with around ten to fifteen VMs, the configuration process can typically be completed within a day. It might take around a week or two for a critical environment with 200 VMs.

We set up the infrastructure in the production site and deployed the virtual environment. Later, we configure the virtual environment and storage. For physical servers, a physical-to-virtual conversion is executed. Post-production site deployment, attention turns to the disaster recovery site, where the Site Recovery Manager is set up on both ends. Further, we can do migration testing.

It is an expensive platform. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

Most of the customers are running production environments on-premises. They have their own DR environment in a different location or cloud. Business continuity planning helps us with maintenance, unexpected downtimes, or disaster recovery drills. We can seamlessly integrate it and migrate it to the DR site.

Orchestration and automation features play a significant role in disaster recovery, particularly when interfacing with the VMware vCenter. It provides seamless integration.

Incorporating non-disruptive testing capability in disaster recovery procedures has significantly benefited the overall recovery testing processes. For instance, during the production application to the disaster recovery (DR) site, customers can now check the capability and compliance of the replication process without causing disruptions to the live production environment. SRM administration has consistently proven effective in reducing recovery time objectives (RTOs) during real recovery events.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We typically use it for disaster recovery testing. It automates the process of failing over from a protected site to a recovery site, helping us achieve our RTO (Recovery Time Objective).

It has simplified data center application and failover processes, but the underlying technologies can be challenging. 

If we're using replication appliances, configuring them to work with SRM can be complex. Additionally, bandwidth and VM size can impact performance.

I would rate the ease of setting up and configuring my recovery plan in VMware SRM, a ten out of ten, with ten being the easiest.

The "Test Failover" feature is valuable. It lets us run a test and see if recovery reaches the RTO. It also shows us any issues with our VMs. 

It prompts us to perform a test failover by failing over a vm or a group of vms. Once the failover is complete, it verifies if the recovery reaches its initial stage.  We can also manually trigger the failover by the click of a button.

We also used the non-disruptive testing feature but only on a few test machines to confirm functionality. It works well.

There is room for improvement in the replication interface and functionality. Every time you open a remote site, you need to sign in again.

Ideally, single sign-on after integrating with vCenter should provide secure credentials that avoid re-entering passwords for every remote site access. It takes time every single time.

It has a ton of features, but ease of use could be improved. It gets better with automatic configuration over time, adapting to access. If you bring in a storage test application, maybe an automatic plug-in to the adapter, say for HPE or other storage providers, would be helpful. We wouldn't have to go to the provider's sites to download them.

The product itself is smooth, but timing issues arise due to replication lags in multiple areas.  When this happens, we encounter errors. In our most recent environment, we left the virtual machines running at the recovery site, hoping to avoid redeployment.

In this organization, we have been using it for about five years. I've been working with it for more than that overall, maybe eight years.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

The usage is restricted to a maximum of three users. They are administrators. It does not need much scaling because one server can manage a certain number of hosts. It really depends on the underlying replication infrastructure.

Overall, I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

The escalation matrix seems to depend on who gets the tickets. There are many articles due to AI, so the customer service and support want you to go through those first, even when you need immediate support. It also depends on your package. Weekend support is limited (Monday-Friday), which isn't ideal for disaster recovery. For disaster recovery, we want 24/7 support.

But once we get to an actual support person, it's good.

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with ten being easy. 

The complexity of the initial setup depends on the deployment model and current infrastructure. 

On the new base, it will be difficult because we need to install it with existing replication in place. That requires knowing how to integrate the tool. On-premise or cloud integration is a bit easier. 

Deployment itself is minimal. Configuration takes longer, usually a day or two.  It may take more or less time, depending on the size of the environment. 

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive. VMware sells in bundles of 50 VMs, so if we want to expand with a smaller number, we have to buy the whole bundle.

Overall. I would rate the solution a nine out of ten because it helps our organization. 

In my area of expertise, which is resiliency, I primarily use VMware SRM for disaster recovery use cases. I also use it for backup and data loss prevention use cases, making it easier to manage and safeguard critical data within virtualized environments.

VMware SRM has improved our organization's value by consistently meeting our clients' time requirements when deploying solutions. When we implement SRM for our clients, it helps ensure that their disaster recovery and data protection needs are addressed within their expected timeframes. 

In terms of resiliency, the most valuable aspect of SRM has been its effectiveness.

There is room for improvement in the automation and orchestration aspects of this solution.

I have been using VMware SRM for ten years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a seven out of ten. Like any software, we do encounter glitches and the need for patches and fixes from time to time, which is a normal part of maintenance. However, there is room for improvement in terms of patching processes, including reducing delays and addressing issues in applying patches. Additionally, better documentation would enhance the overall experience with the solution.

I would rate the scalability of VMware SRM as a six out of ten. Scalability challenges occur occasionally, especially during migrations from on-premises to the cloud, as it is often a gradual process over several months. Creating a financial model that aligns with this scalability can be quite challenging. Within our organization, which has a worldwide presence, approximately 90,000 people use this solution. However, in specific areas like the delivery organization and operations, the user count is in the hundreds.

I would rate the technical support as an eight out of ten.

Positive

I would rate the easiness of the initial setup as a seven out of ten. In our company, VMware SRM is deployed both on-premises and on the cloud. It took about two months to deploy it and it was done in-house. The number of staff required for deployment typically ranges from two to six people, depending on the size of the project. Maintenance for this solution is typically provided by the developers or vendors. We have maintenance agreements with various providers like VMware, Rubrik, Veeam, and Commvault, and hardware maintenance is handled by the hardware provider through our maintenance contracts.

I would give it an eight out of ten in terms of costliness.

Overall, I would rate VMware SRM as a seven out of ten.

Our initial deployment of VMware's Site Recovery Manager in conjunction with PostgreSQL for automotive sales, and also involved integrating SRM with HP's triple storage systems. It leverages background storage replication to ensure stable and reliable business continuity.

Stability and ease of installation, along with straightforward maintenance through the graphical user interface, make this solution a practical choice. It eliminates the need for complex compliance requirements, making it a highly effective solution.

The primary site lacks adequate equipment, such as power backup and cooling, which can lead to downtime during issues like power outages or overheating.

We have been working with it for six years now.

It is a highly reliable solution.

It's important to note that the scalability of the solution should align with the customer's needs. If they anticipate increased workloads and data, they can easily scale up their storage systems. Site Recovery Manager simplifies this process, as it doesn't necessitate extensive reconfiguration, instead, it involves adding or extending data links in the replication groups, making it a straightforward and manageable process. It is well-suited for mid-sized and small companies that don't have extensive data replication needs. It's a practical choice for businesses in need of a reliable and scalable disaster recovery solution that matches their specific requirements.

VMware offers excellent support for its products, and we haven't encountered any noteworthy issues or negative experiences in our interactions with their support team.

Positive

In addition to our existing setup, we use backup software, Veeam, for replication on the disaster recovery side. With Veeam, we replicate virtual machines from the primary site to the secondary site. It is particularly advantageous because it doesn't require the same storage type on both the primary and secondary sides, which gives us flexibility and allows us to mix and match storage types if needed. One of the key benefits of Veeam is its ease of management, making it a valuable resource for replication. I believe it has a promising future, especially for handling data replication in various sectors. We also employ Veeam in the banking system to replicate data from different strategies across multiple departments. Its performance in replicating virtual machines is superior to SRM. The choice between SRM and Veeam largely depends on your storage environment and replication needs.

The initial setup was easy and straightforward.

The implementation process typically involves setting up VMware, configuring virtual machines, creating storage blocks, and installing the necessary components. For VMware to work seamlessly with the storage, a connector from the storage vendor is installed within the VMware environment, and once this is in place, replication can begin. In cases where there's a substantial amount of data to replicate, and the customer lacks a robust network link between sites, a physical transfer of data is undertaken. This involves physically moving storage devices from the primary site to the DR site, initiating the replication process, and then returning the storage to its original location once replication is completed. The replication process usually takes around two weeks, which is considered suitable for customers with relatively uncomplicated needs. For smaller customers with ten machines or so, replication is organized into groups based on different data sources on the storage system. Implementation requires the involvement of one or two technical experts who are well-versed in the equipment and storage systems. Monitoring the system is primarily the responsibility of the customer, with one or two IT personnel overseeing the process. Email notifications are often set up to keep track of system performance and any issues that may arise.

It is reasonably priced, and its cost hasn't been a significant factor in our implementation. We utilize various licensing options, but we typically purchase licenses upfront, avoiding monthly or yearly payment structures. We often opt for multi-year agreements, and if technical support isn't required, it allows us to maintain the same number of virtual machines and central traffic capacity.

If you're dealing with a more stable and homogeneous storage environment and have technical reasons to favor SAN, then SRM, which is tightly integrated with the storage vendor, may have some advantages. Veeam is a better solution when you have a mix of heterogeneous storage types, multiple sites, and diverse data replication requirements, as it operates independently of the storage application. For larger customers, such as those in the banking sector with diverse storage systems and extensive data replication needs, Veeam might be preferred. While it might have a slightly higher price point compared to SRM, it offers more flexibility and scalability. SRM, on the other hand, is well-suited for smaller customers with simpler storage environments and a smaller number of servers. It's more straightforward to configure and manage in such scenarios. Overall, I would rate VMware SRM ten out of ten.

In my company, we use VMware SRM for its disaster recovery capabilities. It is a tool for automating and orchestrating the disaster recovery of our company's IT environment.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that you can independently run the disaster recovery without disturbing the production instances. You can demonstrate that your disaster recovery is foolproof without encountering any disaster in your IT environment. You can demonstrate to your company's leadership team that business continuity is available for all applications. Even in a disaster scenario, one would be able to recover their environment in a certain period of time.

Currently, the recovery manager is primarily for only VMware environments or virtual machines running on VMware. Suppose the recovery manager can be extended to a non-VMware environment. In that case, we can integrate all of the tools in an IT environment together and function using one single recovery manager. Allowing for integrations with non-VMware products and environments will really help.

I have been using VMware SRM for more than ten years.

It is a pretty stable solution.

Scalability will not be applicable to VMware SRM since it is a product that does disaster recovery. Its scalability can be considered because you can add additional nodes to the product if you want to scale while ensuring you have the required licenses.

We use the solution for more than 100 customers.

The initial setup of VMware SRM isn't straightforward because many customizations are required since it helps in the recovery of your IT environment. It is not the tool but the process that is complex. The tasks associated with using the tool in an environment for disaster recovery are complex.

The product's deployment process takes around three to four weeks to complete.

For the deployment process, you need to assess your environment before getting into the design phase, after which you need to understand the business objectives and goals clearly to design your target environment. Once your environment is ready, then you need to understand the steps you need to follow to configure VMware SRM to achieve your target state. I would say assessment followed by defining a clear business objective, and then after design, you have to build the environment.

There is a need for an architect to take care of the design part of the solution, along with a couple of engineers and a dedicated project manager to run the product during the deployment phase. There is a need for at least two engineers to run the product.

The licensing costs for the product are perpetual in nature. A person needs to buy the license only once there is a need to buy support on a yearly basis. The licensing cost for VMware SRM is expensive.

I recommend those wanting to use the solution completely understand their own environment since VMware SRM is meant for VMware environment only. You cannot integrate VMware SRM with other non-VMware products. If your requirements are very much restricted to VMware alone, then VMware SRM can be a good choice for managing activities related to disaster recovery. If you have a mixed environment, you need to think and look for other products in the market other than VMware SRM.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use SRM to invoke DR and to move workloads across the DR side.

The thing I like the most about SMR is the reduced cost of management.

VMware SRM lacks certain functions that other platforms have, such as better prioritization of allocation of resources and Boot profiles.

I've been using VMware SRM for a long time, almost ten years.

It's a good and stable product. They do a lot of testing.

I think it's scalable. When you work for big organizations, I don't think that's much of a problem. There are multiple and fairly large clusters. That's one of the ways that we reduce cost because we are building things like sequel clusters. Approximately 5,000 people use SRM at our company.

The technical support is great. VMware staff help with deploying and testing. In terms of building storage clusters, metro clusters, stretch clusters across sites so that, you get all of the benefits of a local cluster, but they're deployed between the lines and the DR side. It's a fantastic technology and VMware provides you with their best people.

Positive

Before VMware SRM, we were using Veritas Volume Manager and Veritas Replication Manager for stand-alone. When we went to virtualize, we moved to SRM. I did a lot of work with IBM PowerVM and it had some nice features. It had things such as better prioritization of allocation of resources and Boot profiles where you could put one VM across another so that it grabbed the resources. You could do things such as have thin DR VMs without much allocation of CPU or memory, and then as you boot them, they start to grab all of that automatically from all of the non-prod. Functions like that were quite good in Power VM, which aren't quite as present in the VMware world. PowerVM is extremely expensive to use and that's why everyone is shifting towards commodity computers.

I'm an architect so I did not install SRM myself, but I think there were no issues with installing it since it's a pretty standard tool nowadays. It does not require much maintenance. We are still running some old versions of VMware as there was a challenge around Oracle licensing. We are moving the Oracle workloads off of it now and addressing the architecture to get rid of the copies of the legacy versions of VMware. 

SRM is quite pricey and the license is renewed annually. I think that they do a lot of ULAs, the universal license agreements, where you pay a set amount and get unlimited usage. That's how it usually goes with big companies. Occasionally, they do true-ups to work out how much you've got and whether ULA pricing is appropriate. It might be too expensive for smaller organizations.

I would advise new users to start off with manual processes and document exactly what they want to come up with in the right order. Get your IT continuity plan defined very closely and with a great amount of detail. Then start to automate with your SRM tooling to make sure that things are brought up in the right order and ensure that if one service fails and you need to bring another one across for latency purposes, you really understand all of those requirements before you start to just implement SRM and marching on without really understanding how the services tie together and the dependencies between them.

Overall, I would rate SRM an eight out of ten.

In this scenario of disaster recovery, we start simply with our VMs. We have just two packs of 25 VMs. We just protect just about 15 VMs.

Thanks to SRM, we haven't had any kind of disaster in our environment.

The disaster recovery has been good. 

In the case of a disaster, the product is very simple. We have security and lower downtime. 

It's very reliable. The solution is stable. 

Its design is good and it does what it is intended to do. 

We are limited to 50 VMs.

The main limitation is the fact we can just activate the product in a disaster scenario. Sometimes we need to activate some VMs in the backup or disaster recovery sites, even if our main site is okay. However, in our current environment, we cannot do this due to the limitations of SRM.

The back sites sometimes are very, very complicated. It is the nature of the product. Sometimes we use vMotion to achieve this kind of objective.

We've used the solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The soluton is scalable. We are doing preparing our environment to be active site-to-site - both the production site and secondary site.

We have 900 people in total on the solution. 

We're in the process of changing things now. 

Technical support is good. We've been very pleased with the responsiveness and helpfulness. 

Positive

We've only used SRM. We did not use anything previously.

More or less, due to the product itself, it's relatively easy to set up. However, in our environment, we have a VM, and that VM application is very complicated. Sometimes we have some issues in running this application on the backup site. This is not due to this SRM. Rather, it is due to our environment.

The deployment took about two years. 

We have a team of four people that can handle deployment and maintenance duties. They are all specialists. 

Sometimes we talk to the local reseller of VM products. We also consult with the vendor of the hardware product. In Brazil, for the government, we have a procurement process. It is not personal. We can just publish our request for a quotation. Any local reseller or national reseller can offer their services.

We've never calculated ROI. 

We pay 400,000 Brazilian Reals for the license. There are no other fees associated with the product.

Most of our VMs are VMware. However, we are changing some VM products, and maybe we will use something else. We are just evaluating at this time. We haven't really seriously evaluated anything. We just update our existing license to support and update.

We are just a customer. 

I'm not sure which version of the product we're using. However, we are updating right now, in the next month. 

Right now, our environment is on-prem. We want to install the hyper-converged to start moving to the cloud.

I'd advise others to maintain the solution and keep it up to date. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We use this solution to run our applications and our server functions.

We find the back up feature of this solution to be particularly valuable.

We would like the patching management function of this product to be improved.

We have been using this solution for around 10 years.

We have found this solution to be very stable so far.

We have found that the technical support team are not always competent enough to help with our issues, and often have to escalate them.

Neutral

We found that the initial setup for this product was quite easy.

We implemented this solution using a third-party team.

The level of licensing required for this solution is dependent on the server instances in use.

I would advise organizations who wish to use this solution, to ensure that their threat protection software is in place and up to date, as there isn't any threat protection embedded in this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.